Synthetic digital content; definition, penalty, report, effective clause.
HB2124 addresses the use of “synthetic digital content,” including deepfakes, by defining that term in Virginia law and treating it as “words” for purposes of existing civil and criminal defamation and insulting-words statutes. The bill amends the state’s insulting-words and slander/libel provisions so that synthetic digital content can be actionable under those laws, and it also creates a new criminal offense for using synthetic digital content to commit any crime prohibited in Chapter 6 of Title 18.2, which includes fraud-related offenses.
The new offense is a Class 1 misdemeanor, separate from the punishment for the underlying crime, and it also creates a civil cause of action for the person depicted in the synthetic content, allowing recovery of actual damages, attorney fees, and other appropriate relief. The bill expressly states that it does not alter the protections of federal Communications Decency Act Section 230 for interactive computer services. It also requires the Attorney General to convene a work group to study current enforcement of laws involving synthetic digital content, including deepfakes, and to recommend whether further action is needed, with a report due to the General Assembly in early 2026. The bill’s first enactment is delayed and must be reenacted by the 2026 session to remain effective.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable. The bill advanced with broad bipartisan support in subcommittee, full committee, both chambers, and on final House agreement to the Senate amendment, with only limited opposition at earlier stages and no recorded dissent in the Senate committee or floor vote. That pattern suggests general agreement that the state should respond to deepfakes and synthetic media, especially where they are used deceptively or in connection with fraud.
The main points of contention appear to be the scope and implementation of the new definitions and remedies. Because the bill ties synthetic digital content into existing defamation and insulting-words laws, some lawmakers may have been concerned about how broadly the term could apply, how it might affect speech, and how it would interact with online platforms and Section 230. The delayed effective date and the required work group indicate that legislators wanted additional study before fully locking in the new framework, particularly on enforcement and whether more targeted legislation is needed.
HB2124 changes Virginia’s civil and criminal law by expanding the statutory definition of “words” to include synthetic digital content in the insulting-words, defamation, slander, and libel provisions, and by creating a separate misdemeanor offense for using synthetic digital content to facilitate crimes. It also creates a private right of action for victims depicted in such content and directs the Attorney General to study enforcement issues and report back with recommendations. The bill affects individuals depicted in deepfakes, criminal defendants using synthetic media in furtherance of offenses, and potentially courts and law enforcement tasked with applying the new definitions, while preserving federal Section 230 protections for online intermediaries.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, with strong votes in subcommittee, committee, and on the floors of both chambers. The near-unanimous Senate action and the House’s eventual agreement to the Senate amendment suggest broad consensus that synthetic digital content and deepfakes present a real legal problem that merits a state response. The limited no votes at earlier stages indicate some reservations, but not enough to prevent passage.
The likely areas of disagreement were the breadth of the definition of synthetic digital content, the decision to fold it into existing defamation and insulting-words statutes, and the potential implications for speech, privacy, and platform liability. Some legislators may have been concerned about overbreadth or unintended consequences for legitimate digital media, while others may have wanted stronger penalties or more immediate action. The inclusion of a delayed effective date and a study work group suggests compromise between those seeking prompt enforcement tools and those wanting further evaluation before the law fully takes effect.